It’s definitely not just for disagreeing with me. Lemme try to explain better. There are layers.
First, she makes absolute statements about sex workers and sex work. I think she’s missing a lot of nuance here, but whatever, it’s a respectable position, and that’s not where my hostility is coming from.
Second, she thinks that firing women who engage in sex work somehow empowers women. That’s a pretty harmful position IMO, and I was pretty hostile to her over that–but that’s not what’s going on here.
Third, she divides those who disagree with her into two categories–not based on their positions, but on their naughty bits. Men who disagree with her? They’re just dogs who want to drool over porn. This is a pretty obnoxious and stupid take, but it’s not what I’m on about here.
Women who disagree with her? Oh, they’ll grow up, and when they’re as old as her, they’ll understand how wrong they were in their youth.
And THAT"s the bit–not the wrongness of her position, not the harmfulness of her willingness to destroy the livelihoods of people, not her nasty dismissal of guys who disagree with her–that led to my talking about her gransplaining.
Of course there’s nuance and power dynamics and so on in the debate over the sex industry. Some people think it’s inherently harmful to women. Other folks think that it doesn’t have to be, and are trying to build alternatives to male-controlled sex work. Earlier, I linked her to a very extensive and well-researched WaPo article about one such effort, and I’m pretty sure she ignored it entirely. In any case, there’s a debate to be held.
But the sort of arrogant, “You only disagree with me if you’re a drooling mandog or you’re a young flibbertijibbet girl who doesn’t know any better” really doesn’t contribute to the debate.
It’s possible I’m dismissing her because she’s a woman, I suppose. But I think I come down just as hard on dudes who make stupid arrogant arguments, from Clothahump to Martin Hyde to a million other moronic dudes.